The female officers first moved to the Delhi High Court in 2003 seeking a permanent commission, which was allowed by the court in non-combat units in 2010. On February 17, 2020, the SC confirmed the verdict and asked the Army to grant PC to women. SSC officers. However, 86 female officers returned to the CS alleging arbitrary rejection due to retrospective application of standards.
In a comforting 137-page judgment replete with analysis of various types of discrimination faced by women, a court of Judges DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said: “The evaluation criteria established by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners.”
The evaluation pattern deployed by the Army to implement the decision in Babita Puniya (February 17, 2020) disproportionately affects women. To the author of the sentence, Judge Chandrachud said: “This disproportionate impact is attributable to structural discrimination against women, as a result of which ACR’s facially neutral selective evaluation criteria and compliance with the medical criteria for being in Shape -1 at a late stage to ensure CP affects them disproportionately compared to their male counterparts.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a milestone in the nation’s broader quest for gender equality. The inclusion of women in the Army is not about symbolism; it is something that must be carried out in letter and spirit. The trial must be held by every progressive Indian.
“The pattern of evaluation, by excluding the subsequent achievements of the petitioners and disregarding the inherent patterns of discrimination that occurred as a consequence of haphazard classification and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused economic and psychological damage and an affront to their dignity ”.
The SC said it would be in the spirit of true equality to apply the male counterpart fitness standards to female SSC officers in the same age group and not have female officers who are in their twentieth year of service display a physical fitness similar to that of the tenth year. of service in the Army. The SC said that even at the selection-level positions for male Army officers, fitness levels are much more relaxed.
“Consequently, Army authorities should eliminate the requirement to compare female Short Service Commission (WSSCO) officers with the last male officer who had received CP in their corresponding batches and all WSSCOs that meet the limit of the 60% must receive PC. In addition, the 60% cap calculation, which must be reviewed by Army orders and instructions every two years, must be reevaluated to determine whether the accidental completion of its ACRs is disproportionately impacting WSSCO’s ability to qualify for PC even at that point. threshold, ”said the SC.
“Given the systemic discrimination that women in the Army have suffered for some time, asking for the adoption of an evaluation pattern that accounts for and compensates for this harsh reality is not asking for ‘special and unjustified treatment.’ Rather, it is the only way to achieve substantive equality. Adopting a symmetrical concept of equality is to empty the guarantee against discrimination of Article 15 of every sense ”, said Judge Chandrachud.
The SC said that WSSCOs that have been medically excluded in November 2020 have a legitimate claim that whether they met the Shape-1 criteria should be determined from their medical status on the date they were entitled to be considered. , following the decision of the HC of Delhi in 2010.
“Some of them who met the criteria at the material time are entitled to CP and can continue in service as long as they continue to meet the prescribed medical standards for permanence in the Army,” the bank said. Blaming the Army for the latent controversy over awarding CP to female officers, the CS said it arose only because the Army had not implemented its decision on time, despite the course correction prescribed by the Delhi HC in 2010.
.
